A few decades ago, “positioning” became a popular concept among public–relations consultants. The idea was, a corporation would invent and flesh out a story about where it wanted to be “coming from.” And then people would, in fact, see the corporation “in that place.”

Major media have long been adept in inventing their position: Objective. Neutral. Fact-seeking. Rigorous. Balanced.

The strongest position, and the one media carve out as a form of self-protection is: “Reasonable people can disagree.”

This is the capper.

It allows media companies to refrain from investigating a vital issue down to its core and discovering the truth, followed by assigning blame to the correct persons.

Instead, newspapers and networks offer the time-honored: “This expert says A, while that expert says B.” End of story, because…reasonable people can disagree.

For example, if several million young children, including babies, are being dosed with highly toxic psychiatric drugs, after being diagnosed with mental disorders based on zero scientific evidence, this would constitute a “vital issue,” yes? An issue that grotesquely impacts the life and health and future of these children. It calls out for deep investigation, truth, and assignment of blame. It calls for relentless pressure from the press.

But, the whole matter can be diverted into: “Expert 1 says A, while expert 2 says B.” A removed position can thus be created for the reporting outlet. No need to investigate to the bottom of the scandal. No need to express any passion whatsoever.

The public, by and large, overlooks the obvious ongoing crime and tragedy, because the media aren’t getting in an uproar about it. “Well, if the news people don’t think it’s that dangerous and immediate, it’s okay. Why worry?”

Media: “We don’t jump the gun. We gather information, we contemplate, we consider, and then we present what we know…”

No they don’t. That’s just their self-invented position. On issues and stories that cross forbidden lines, they postpone, delay, and then offer two opposing views, because “reasonable people can disagree.” Because they can make it look like two reasonable people disagreeing.

Take the issue of Libya after Ghaddafi. After the US disposed of Ghaddafi and wrecked the country, reporters could go over and assemble a huge number of horrific and damaging facts and photos and videos, and their newspapers and networks could pound on this story day after day, and then certain US leaders would come sharply into the crosshairs. But instead, more safely, run a few stories, quote a few experts with different views, and leave it that. Reasonable people disagree.

That’s what media outlets do to position themselves. If they dug and found the bottom truth on any vital matter, brought the correct criminals into focus, attacked them, and exerted all possible pressure for prosecutions—-then what? Then they would be changing their basic position. Then their audience would expect media to keep doing that sort of thing on every vital story. No, no, no. That must never happen.

***Since the public takes many cues from media (the great teacher), private individuals also position themselves as neutral, distant, bland, empty of passion.

God forbid a private citizen, in a “social interaction,” would express a passionate view backed up by evidence. His friends and colleagues would slowly step away, as if he might be contagious, or packing explosives.

“Just remember, Bob, reasonable people can disagree. Don’t fly off the handle.”

This is also a lead-in to political correctness:

“Bob, did you just hear the words you were using? Be nice. You could offend someone.”

Media personalities are adept at making any issue feel reasonable. “Well, Jim, although several university scientists are releasing information about the moon being made of green cheese, NASA has published several studies forwarding evidence that the cheese is actually a brand of Moon soil that merely has superficial similarities to cheddar and Fontina. We’ll have to wait and see how this plays out…”

Lesson learned. Better to hang back and see what happens, rather than commit, make an assertion, and then get caught with your pants down.

There’s a twist, too. Copying media and PR agencies, you can make the most absurd idea seem possible merely by employing a reasonable tone:

“Look, when computer power catches up to and passes human brain power, the ability to process a thousand trillion pieces of data in .000001 of a second will imply a basic shift. The IQ inherent in that capability will be on the order of 100,000, at minimum. It makes sense to infer that whatever the source of the universe is, it will at that point reveal itself to the new level of intelligence…”

Sure it will.

There is another bottom-line (illogical) conclusion in the overall game I’m describing: the truth is unavailable; therefore, in its absence, above all be reasonable.

Or: “Don’t worry. People commit spiritual, mental, emotional, and psychic suicide all the time. Join the crowd. Appear reasonable. That’ll get you by and win you friends.”

Corollary: If you express emotion that carries electricity, you’re “ranting.” There is something wrong with you. You should seek help.

Media copy scientists in their style of presentation. As if the news is entirely objective: “We ran the experiment in the lab, and this is the result.”

When enough passion has been drained from an individual, it’s guaranteed that he can’t create. He’s immobile. A stone in a garden. A sunset with no sun. In a mild drizzle, he walks calmly, cultivating his ability to pass between drops.

Oh, he wants to create something, with every fiber of his being. He wants to step out of the shadows of his eternal winter and become an artist of reality. But he has the good sense to pull back. He has the good sense to give himself every excuse in the book. He has the good sense to give small praise where praise is due but do nothing himself.

He sits and watches the news. The presentation/tone confirms everything he has accomplished to shape his own personality. And why shouldn’t it? He ingested his basic lessons from the news.

Maybe I could be a broadcaster, he thinks. I could become the voice that describes what is real and what isn’t. I could narrate the stories. I could position myself to be active and outgoing, while remaining passive. I could gain rewards as a high-level android…I could be, above all else, reasonable.

In an alternate universe, imagine a freshman course at a college in which the professor delivers this brief talk on opening day:

“Well, I offer my congratulations to you thirty students. You qualify for this class because you can read and write at twelfth-grade level. Believe me, that’s a rarity these days. I’m going to teach you how to focus on an important issue, investigate it deeply, assemble evidence, and draw a conclusion. I’m going to awaken your inherent passion for actual, as opposed to phony justice. I’m going to turn you into writers and researchers who take no prisoners. Because, you see, evidence plus passion is a Great Force. You may not understand that now, but you will. We’re going to turn the media universe upside down. We’re going to crack that egg. I’m going to put you through your paces. Each one of you. This isn’t a training ground for the New York Times or CBS or CNN. This is a training ground for authentic independence. Those of you who want that are in the right place. Those of you who can put aside what you’ve already learned from the media will flourish. Here is another message you may not understand yet: It’s not enough to bellow and shout, and it’s not enough to be ‘reasonable.’ These are both false cover stories that obscure what you can become. I’m going to open a door into your own energy—more of it than you can conceive of right now. If you’re beginning to glimpse that what I’m talking about is power, you’re right. Power. That’s why we’re here. So, without further ado, let’s start cracking the mother egg…”

Our top story tonight: reasonable robots running out of juice.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Qaddafi is an interesting point in question. The media slaughter of the cosmetic puppet places questions on the whole op (wave the little puppet to distract the seeing eye). I mean, they say Libya IS “Magog”…..! Anyone been there is recent times?

Dear OT,
With regards to boycott, its a bad Idea, it hampers dialogue thus further increasing tensions.

Heres what I learned today:
boycott defined as a noun, (naming a behaviour in this case)
“withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.”

Not a good idea, ask your ‘self’, do you like being shunned?
It may well cause you to dig in your heels, and stand your ground,
alternatively perhaps the boycott forces you to grovel to keep the affection you sought?

boycott defined as a Verb, (action being confined as non action)
“a punitive ban on relations with other bodies, cooperation with a policy, or the handling of goods.”

The cold shoulder, the mid-bed cold war wall that exists between unrequited love and true love, ask yourself, [boycott] why do so many couples end up sleeping in separate rooms?

Wouldn’t seeking a compromise, You know, sometimes listening, is all that was required.

If you go boycotting, either forvpositive or negative reasons, you are limiting the possible solutions to any problem, Ipso Facto boycotting is wrong.

Wei Wu, or non action is Lao Tsu’s advice, you don’t have to broadcast the fact you are boycotting, why not just act impartially, see if agreement can be achieved through cooperation, its better than oppression or use of force, either physchogical, social or by obtuse behaviour.

Thank you, OT for making me look deeper into the word, I never realised that this strategy is used by unscrupulous people, causing those gullible enough to stick around, situations that they should have left at the first signs of discomfort.

to those fools who bully using boycott, its a pity they failed to apply the old adage of Dale Carnegie:
“a spoonful of sugar is more effective than a gallon of gall”, at getting something.

So applying this tactic, daily as you interact with others, on a personal level, smile, be courteous, and feel blessed, your still alive.

I found out today, that one of my favourite Lecturers, Dennis T Hall, died in 2009, I had no Idea, and had been thinking of contacting him, looks like I won’t be able to do that now.